« bitchslap ted rall, volume 10 | Main | what do you want to do tonight? »

rangel rhymes with strangle!

The thought has entered my mind quite frequently that Charles Rangel just may be an incredibly thoughtless jerk.

There's that saying that goes something like - Better to have people question whether you are an ass or not than to open your diseased mouth and remove all doubt.

Yea, that was heavily paraphrased.

Rangel removed all doubt.


i live in his district. theres no way in hell i'm going to sit by and let him get reelected in 04.

anyone who wants to get in on the voter rebellion, drop me a line.

It goes:

It is far better to keep one's mouth closed, and be thought an idiot, rather than open it and remove all doubt.

I don't remember who said it, though.

Samual Clemens, better known as Mark Twain.

Katydid> I'm from New Orleans and I find Bill Jefferson crooked, and for atime my Congressman was Harodl Ford, Jr., who i spretty good as Democrats go. When I look at soem of these other Congressmen, Bill Jefferson doesn't look so bad.

Rangel has none of the virtues of a dead badger. He is a partisan left wing extremeist who accused Americans of bombing women and children. He has insulted our fighting men and should resign. I'm sick of these leftists who attack the US.

I heard Charles Rangel's comments, and I heard Sean Hannity trying to take him to task for them, and failing miserably. Rangel's comments about bombing women and children were NOT an insult to the American military. They were simply a dramatic statement of fact - women and children will die as a result of a bombing campaign. He said very clearly that he supports the American military (he's a decorated war veteran).

Rather than embrace the larger question of accepting necessary evils, Hannity chose to focus on the easy but empty fruit of criticizing Rangel for "daring" to mention collateral damage in such a dramatic way. It's clear Rangel thinks the human toll of the war is too much and favors other methods of solving the problem. It's undeniable that innocent people will die as a result of the intentional decision to go to war. To go forward, is to accept that calamity. That's what Rangel said. Most people (especially conservative punidts) are ok with it. Ire at Rangels comments seems like beating a straw issue, akin to reprimanding the messenger.

You're deliberately wrong, Chris. Rangel clearly wasn't talking about collateral damage. He was engaged in the same game you are: say outrageous bullshit, but in such a way as to be able to try to deny it later. It's the same as "I'm against the war but I support the troops". I don't "have a problem with it", but call it what it is, mealy-mouthed shit.

I'm deliberately wrong? That's a new one FredJ - I've never been accused of intentionally putting forth a "wrong" argument. Please explain what you think I have to gain from such action. Playing devil's advocate out of boredom, for instance? No, I actually believe what I wrote above.

You seem to be full of accusations. You accuse me of playing a game, and of saying outrageous things. I wasn't aware I was doing either. Perhaps you or someone else could point out to me what I said that was so egregious, why I would deny it, or what part of my words constitute a game.

Rather, your last remark, reducing dichotomous ideas to "mealy-mouthed shit", gives you away. You needn't be combative and insulting to express yourself. Your words belie themselves - you do have a problem with it. Say something enlightening, words are meant to express ideas, what exactly did Rangel mean? And why would a decorated war veteran say something that appears to be in direct conflict with his background, history, and experience?

OK, Chris, I re-read your post. I retract any reference to your comments in the above; I wrote while upset about Rangel, and missed my mark. I apologize for my testiness.

I don't have a problem with Rangel making comments per se. I think they should be placed in correct perspective. Rangel is the guy who suggested that we needed to reinstate the draft in order to prevent "overrepresentation" of blacks and other minorities on casualty lists. Rangel is mealy-mouthed because he clearly is against the conflict, but uses oblique arguments to present his position...draft, killing women and children, etc.

The left is quick to point out that Rangel is a "decorated war veteran". So am I. We reach different conclusions. Ron Dellums is a former Marine. Is his opinion more valid than mine?

Fair enough. I appreciate your comments.

I think it's generally accepted that being a veteran of war adds credibility to opinions on the subjet of war.

I too am a decorated Korean War Veteran, and I for one do not think that the likes of Charles Rangels has a place in our government. He is an insult to all veterans and active servicemen in our country. I do not understand why Hannity invites him to their show. When I see Rangels on TV I want to puke. New York must be having to dig in the bottom of the barrel to elect this creep. Thank you.

One must be poor to know the luxury of giving.